Notes:

The pleasure is that if nonexistence preceded existence,
and nonexistence is also powerless, then like a tear, mankind too is be
sar-o-paa . And despite a tear's being {helpless, futile / 'without head
and foot'}, we/they 'bind' it. And from binding something, its being bound
presupposes its existence. The gist is that we will certainly remain in the
prison of existence, and will not attain the rank of oblivion, which is freedom
itself. (112)

He says, man can become released and free from the prison
of the world, and all other prisons, but not from the prison of existence.
Even though a teardrop is 'without head and foot', we/they 'bind' it, and
it is bound; and man too, like a tear, is be sar-o-paa .
Thus we will certainly remain in the prison of existence, and will not attain
the rank of oblivion, which is freedom itself. (124)

Release from the prison of existence is in no way possible.
Just look-- they've confined tears in the prison of be sar-o-paa))ii . Before existence, there is nonexistence; afterwards, nonexistence.
For this reason it's been declared to be {helplessness, futility}. Now there
is a test: when despite their being 'without head and foot' tears have been
bound, how can man, who is similar to them in {helplessness, futility}, be
free? (215)

FWP:

What a contrast with {108,3}, the
previous verse! Both are passionate, both inshaa))iyah
(the first vocative, the second exclamatory). But the first (implicitly) laments
the inconceivable briefness of life, while the second deplores its excruciating
length and inescapability. Verses for two temperaments, or two moods-- juxtaposed
accidentally, or on purpose?

The first line indignantly rejects the idea that there could
possibly be any release from the prison of existence. This colloquial use
of ma((luum as a vigorous negative exclamatory marker
is very common; for more on this see {4,3}. We expect that the second line will provide either
the evidence that has generated this strong reaction, or a secondary effect
of it.

And, as so often in Ghalib, the second line opens up a number
of available, and ultimately unresolvable, interpretive possibilities. Here
are some of the main ones:

=Because of the situation described in line 1, in our poetry we depict and describe
tears as 'helpless, futile', since it's clear that lamenting our plight will
do no good. (For more on this use of baa;Ndhnaa , see
{108,1}.)

=Even our helpless tears, which being 'without head and foot' have
literally nothing that can be 'bound', are somehow 'bound' or tied up-- will jailers who can pull off a feat like that ever allow
us who have heads and feet to escape?

=Just as tears have no top/beginning (head) or bottom/end
(foot), so we humans have no access to the origin or end of our existence;
we come from nonexistence, and return to it. Thus as long as we exist at all,
we can't escape the 'prison of our existence', and thus can't know the true
freedom of oblivion. (This is Nazm's reading, followed more or less by everybody
else.)

There's also the elegant wordplay of 'release' [rihaa))ii]
and 'to bind' [baa;Ndhnaa], set off of course by the
double meaning of the latter. But above all, the word-and-meaning-play of
be sar-o-paa honaa , especially when combined with baa;Ndhnaa ,
energizes the verse.